Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Hollander


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No Consensus-default to keep Jtkiefer  T - 19:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Audrey Hollander
Crystal ball, possible advertising, possible vanity, probable porncruft... Vizjim 00:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN. Does not even have a web page. Jwissick  (t)  (c)  01:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a lot of porn star bio articles in Wikipedia. She has a lot of page results in Google: 422,000 for "Audrey Hollander" and Yahoo!: "199,000 for "Audrey Hollander". She also appeared a lot of movies. --J. Nguyen 01:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said at Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri, the Google Test is skewed and meaningless for porn actresses. There's a whole subsection of the Internet pornography industry that is devoted to so skewing it (and that indeed regularly adds lists of links to WikiMedia projects as part of skewing it).  Relying upon the Google Test as a gauge of notability for porn acresses is exceedingly unwise.  Moreover, the number of films is not a strict indicator when it comes to actresses.  (One can produce any number of unknown films.)  As criteria for inclusion of biographies states, the films and thus the actresses have to be known by people, as demonstrated by the existence of newspaper or magazine coverage, commercial endorsements, fan clubs, and independent biographies.  Please demonstrate that this is so in this case by pointing to such things. Uncle G 02:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. - Hahnchen 01:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete following Uncle G's comments. She does indeed seem to be a bit part tits for hire.  I mean, look at the name, that's not a pornstar name is it. - Hahnchen 02:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No newspaper or magazine coverage. No commercial endorsements.  No fan clubs.  No biographies at all, independent or otherwise.  (The IAFD entry linked to above is little more than height, weight, age, hair colour, and distinguishing marks.  If that were enough, every person with a passport would rate an encyclopaedia article.  All other purported biographies are the same.)  This actress does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion of biographies, and there are simply no sources for making a biographical article.  Delete. Uncle G 02:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I respect your opinions, Uncle G. I found you balance on voting in the AfD/VfD. I don't like *-crufts as much as the next guy but we already have gazillion porn star bio articles in Wikipedia. I'm not into pornography but there is an adult video trade publication that has covered her. It is the AVN which has a semi-article in Wikipedia. They had an interview about her that shows some biographical data but not that much. Not Safe For Work reference (see copyright "©2001 AVN Publications") Although, this doesn't fit your criteria but a popular weblog, Fleshbot has covered her as well. Again Not Safe For Work --J. Nguyen 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn CLW 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I, um, haven't seen this name that I've noticed. I agree with Uncle G on the general principles for articles in this category, and on the verifiable data in this case not showing notability.  The article says she's a frontrunner for a 2006 award from a leading publication, Adult Video News, but WP is not a crystal ball.  If it happens, we could discuss whether that award confers notability, but I think the consensus would be "no", not without some of the other criteria that Uncle G mentioned.  Delete, but with lubricant.  Barno 06:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete!!!!--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 10:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, someone's obviously taken the trouble of skewing google results for her benefit. Kappa 12:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Independent coverage: http://www.avninsider.com/stories/audreyotto.shtml Kappa 12:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone taking the trouble of skewing google to get more hits on their titty site hardly makes her encyclopaedic. Proto t c 13:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Which titty site would that be? Kappa 13:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. There are many.  Proto t c 14:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't vote based entirely on speculation. Kappa 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See Uncle G's excellent comments above, which sum up my reasons for voting "delete" better than I ever could. Proto t c 14:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's notable enough for IMDb, it's notable enough for WP. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. How is "someone's obviously taken the trouble of skewing google results for her benefit" a keep argument? Marskell 18:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, partially because of the arguments noted so excellently above and partially because 'porncruft' is the greatest word to be coined so far in the 21st century. Lord Bob 18:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unfortunately - has a massive amount of google hits and has been in an insane amount of pornos, even some self-titled ones like violation of Audrey Hollander. Ryan Norton T 20:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was self titled, as it was part of a series: List (Warning: Adult Content)-LtNOWIS 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete nn PornActress --JAranda &#124; yeah 00:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - See her IMDb page. In 3 years, 102 porn films as an actress and 1 as director. -LtNOWIS 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Uncle G's comments. DirectorStratton 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per AVN award nom. -- BD2412 talk 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.